[Python-Dev] PEP 572, VF/B, and "Shark Jumping"
On 05.07.2018 9:20, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 05:33:50AM +0300, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
>> And https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-June/154160.html
>> disproves the "chosen often these days in new languages".
> Ivan, I think you may have linked to the wrong page. That page was Chris
> kindly referring you to my post here:
This is as intended.
I wanted to show my summary and Chris' refuttal, with links to both
original posts. Because my letter is much shorter than the originals
while carrying the same message. Also to show that I've made the same
mistake, which puts things in perspective: how an outsider could get the
> which refutes Mike's original, biased selection of a handful of
> languages. Which he then misrepresented as not including assignment
> expressions when half of them actually do, at least in a limited form.
> (3 out of the 5 of Mike's examples include *at least* some limited
> assignment expression. My survey found 13 out of 18 modern languages
> have at least some form of assignment expression. See link above for
> It simply isn't true that modern languages are moving away from
> assignment expressions. Some are. Some aren't. Even those that don't
> support assignment expressions in general usually support special syntax
> to allow it in a few contexts.
> But even if we pretended that, let's say, Go for example has no
> assignment expressions (it actually does, but limited only to the
> special case of if statements), what conclusion should we draw?
> That Rob Pike is ever so much a better language designer than Guido?
> Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but Go is just eight years old. Python is
> 27. When Python was 8, it lacked a lot of features we find indispensible
> Who is to say that when Go is 27, or even 10, it won't have added
> assignment expressions?
> Some of Go's choices seem a bit... idiosyncratic. Strings are still
> ASCII byte-strings. Unicode text is relegated to a seperate type,
> "runes", the naming of which is a tad patronising and contemptuous of
> non-ASCII users. There are no exceptions or try...finally. The designers
> bowed to public pressure and added a sort of poor-man's exception system,
> panic/recover, but for most purposes, they still requiring the "check a
> flag to test success" anti-pattern. The designers are actively opposed
> to assertions.
> I dare say a lot of Python's choices seem strange to Go programmers too.
> Rather than saying "Go got it right", maybe we should be saying "Go got
> it wrong".
>>> We can also reuse the existing "EXPR as NAME" syntax that already
>>> exists and is widely enjoyed.
>> For the record, with "as", Victor Stinner's examples from the 5 Jul 2018
>> 00:51:37 +0200 letter would look like:
> Enough with the "as" syntax. This discussion has been going on since
> FEBRUARY, and "as" was eliminated as ambiguous months ago. Stop beating
> that dead horse.